The Legislature sought to preserve the neighborhood schools concept by preserving resident enrollment,
i.e., by guaranteeing that neighborhood students would not be displaced to
accommodate transfer students. Choice planning committees were quick to affirm
their commitment to this principle. Parents, they claim, are comfortable with
the convenience of neighborhood schools, and students prefer the shorter bus
rides that such a system generally assures.

Center Line Superintendent Terry Follbaum spoke for many administrators when he told the
Warren Weekly of May 13, 1992, that he "does not think a lot of people will take advantage of it [Schools of Choice
]. The local school concept is so embedded. Parents want to send their kids
where their friends go to school."

Commentary:

The Legislature acted properly in affirming and preserving the primacy of neighborhood schools in the schools of choice
legislation. Neighborhood schools and schools of choice are not mutually
exclusive concepts, however. Given incentives such as greater autonomy and
funding based on pupil enrollment, neighborhood schools may choose to welcome
and even recruit new nonresident students without displacing resident students.
Residents who prefer neighborhood schools above all else, moreover, may benefit
from the stimulus for system-wide improvement provided by choice.

2. Loss of Local Control Feared

Despite the Legislature's intent that schools of choice provide an incentive for reform, some
administrators and planning committee members complained that the mandate
appeared as more of a threat than an offer. For many administrators, choice was
an additional, time-consuming requirement that interfered with normal operations
and intruded upon their autonomy.

For example, a number of administrators argued that the requirement that districts randomly select
students when applicants exceed available space actually restricted rather than
enhanced choice.

Percy Smith, Superintendent of Ironwood Area Schools, and Kelloggsville's Assistant Superintendent William
Zoller both observed that, in the past, administrators could weigh parents' and
students' reasons for requesting a transfer. For example, academic reasons for
transfer requests may outweigh other reasons, such as convenience. Under the
districts' new policies, however, students' reasons for requesting a certain
school are irrelevant: the selection process is random.

Other administrators lamented the program as burdensome. One Fraser administrator explained that his
district had formerly operated on a first-come, first-served basis. Now, he
said, the process is slower and burdened with superfluous paperwork. Petoskey's
Committee adamantly opposed the state mandate, partly on the grounds that it
would be unwieldy compared to existing policy: "[T]he district would no longer
be able to accommodate many of the day care needs of families, and there would
be greater restrictions for students who are non-walkers (approximately 2/3 of
the enrollment)." Patricia Murphy, Administrative Assistant of Classified
Personnel in the Saginaw Township District, cited rigid deadlines for
applications as reducing the district's flexibility.

Commentary:

District administrators and local citizens are rightfully protective of local autonomy in the face of
state mandates. But the schools of choice legislation left it up to local
districts to decide how to implement their own schools of choice programs. The Legislature even allowed
districts to exempt themselves from the mandate. If anything, it appears that
the Legislature erred by allowing districts enough local autonomy to substitute
transfer policies for genuine choice programs.

Districts with space constraints understandably prefer having some discretion to
differentiate legitimate reasons for requesting a transfer from less noble
motives. Ideally, districts would seek to accommodate all choice requests.
Unfortunately, most districts accept existing space constraints as a given,
thereby necessitating rationing of choice seats. With greater flexibility from
the state Legislature and district administrators, and a willingness to
innovate, schools could find ways to accommodate enrollment shifts and thereby
negate the whole issue of random admissions to choice programs. For example,
Detroit's Bates Academy, an empowered school which directly controls over 90% of
its budget, has decided to purchase a new building in part to increase its
enrollment capacity.

3. Parents Don't Care

Some administrators observed that parents often remain uninterested in schools of
choice, even after receiving information. For example, Coldwater's Sharon Franz
commented that not even one parent attended a public forum the district hosted
to discuss schools of choice. John Mills of the Westland district observed,
moreover, that parents are doing little of the consumer investigation upon which
choice is premised.

Many districts which informally approved transfer requests in the past reported that
the majority of those requesting transfers did so for reasons of personal
convenience rather than academics (e.g., an alternate school might be closer to
a babysitter's residence). Huron Valley's District Communication Coordinator
Micki Marceau-Vernier explained that about 40 of 9,000 pupils exercise their
open enrollment option in a given year – 99 percent of whom do so for logistical
reasons.

In Harper Creek, where formalization of standing policy was the order of the day,
the broader dissemination of information about choice options resulted in
slightly more interest in such options. Most of those inquiring, however,
continued to do so for reasons of child care convenience.

Apathy, however, does not afflict parents in all communities. Tecumseh's Gary
Lovett said, "People respond very well to choice." Currently, Tecumseh has space
to accommodate approximately 300-320 choice students, he said, although the
district receives between 450 and 500 requests per year. According to Lovett,
the district only modified its existing practices slightly in reaction to the
choice legislation because Tecumseh is already involved in cross-district choice
within the county.

Although Lapeer Superintendent Jack McCauley agrees that there can be tremendous
local inertia in favor of the traditional neighborhood school model, he observed
that the state's choice mandate can be beneficial since "it helps overcome"
local complacency. A district can motivate parents by telling them, "This is the
way that the state is going," he said.

Commentary:

Many administrators routinely inferred that their receipt of relatively low
numbers of transfer requests proves that parents are satisfied with the
education currently provided to their children by their neighborhood schools.
This logic is flawed, however, in that people may seem satisfied with their
current situation only because they have nothing with which to compare it.

When the only substantive difference among schools is their location, it follows
that educational choices will be based on geographic convenience: no competing
values manifest themselves for consideration. Curricular and pedagogical
diversity, combined with the dissemination of results-oriented information,
would likely stimulate many more parents to consider choosing schools for
reasons other than convenience.

4. Choice Is impractical for Small Districts

Greg Milkins, Assistant Superintendent of Business in the Orchard View district, typified the view of
many small school district administrators: "For small districts like ours (we
have only two elementary schools) this is just poppycock." Choice;, he said,
"might have a major impact in a large district, but it's crazy for a small one,"
where money is a concern and the schools are essentially the same. Noting that
he supported enhanced quality of education and increased opportunity, he
concluded that choice in districts like Orchard View amounts to nothing more
than "jumping through [the State's] hoops." Lapeer Superintendent Jack McCauley
similarly observed, "In many [small] districts, choice is a joke," he said,
because they lack the capacity necessary to offer a real choice program with
authentically distinct options.

Commentary:

Building-level choice is clearly less feasible in districts with few schools and great distance between
them. In these cases, choice can be enhanced by using distance-learning to
diversify curricular offerings within schools. Alternatively, districts may
consider consolidating one or several grade level programs into one building, as
the Stephensville and Thornapple- Kellog districts have done, and allow for a
choice of teachers and/or programs.

However, according to Kathleen Mayhew of the State Department of Education, the Office of the Attorney
General is of the opinion that the legislative intent for the schools of choice
language was that students and families would be able to choose among schools –
that is, distinct geographical and architectural entities. It therefore appears
that schools within schools or immersion programs would not qualify as schools
of choice under a severe interpretation of this law. (For more information, see
Appendix 3, Part 1, Interview with Kathleen Mayhew.)

A related issue is that few districts other than major urban ones have more than one middle or high
school. Without interdistrict choice or schools within schools, public school
choice may often be limited to elementary schools.

5. Miscellaneous Objections

In most districts, the degree to which choice is implemented depends heavily on administrators'
attitudes toward choice – despite the Legislature's attempt to involve parents
in the process directly. (Wyandotte's Director of Curriculum Robert Dunn
discusses this point in Appendix 3.) As one might expect, these attitudes varied
from outright hostility to enthusiastic support. A small sample follows.

Planning Committee Chairman Dave Collins of the
Western district emphasized his fear that an elaborate choice system may lead to
elitism and cause a "rift" or infighting among buildings and teachers. "People
want nearby buildings," he said.

Riverview Superintendent Michael Krigelski observed that schools of choice neither posed notable problems
nor entailed a significant change for the district. In his view, however, the
exercise of choice could amount to escapism. Krigelski wondered how one could
deal with a student trying to escape a disliked teacher; one cannot know whether
a student's transfer request is for legitimate academic reasons or otherwise
motivated. "In life, if I don't like my boss, I've got to deal with him. I can't
escape," he said. We all "must learn to face our problems, instead of fleeing
them." The provision of easy choice for any reason whatsoever encourages
students to make a mountain out of minor concerns, he said.

Perhaps the most scathing words came from Kentwood's Superintendent Jerome A. Victor. "The new changes
won't improve things," he augured. The choice legislation, in fact, is "the most
backassward law" that he's seen in quite some time. Victor, a self-proclaimed
moderate Republican who is upset with the Party for pushing schools of choice,
said that he saw intra-district choice as a preparatory step toward the ultimate
goal of an inter-district, comprehensive, public and private voucher system, a
haunting specter which he "hate(s)." Broad-based choice, he suggested, would exacerbate
"white flight and socioeconomic flight," both of which are "destructive to the
kind of community we're trying to build."

"All it is is a political move to get away from ... what they should be doing –
improving school financing," River Valley Superintendent Charles Williams told
the February 19, 1992, Heraid-Palladium. "It's just a token thing," he
added.

Some administrators, in contrast, spoke positively about choice. Clio Area
administrators, for instance, thought that choice will increase contact and
interaction between parents and instructors. "It breaks down barriers," one
said.

The choice plan adopted by the Cass City district did more to clarify than broaden
existing transfer policy, but Superintendent Kenneth .1. Micklash saw a positive
side to his district's formalization of choice. "'The plan provides good
clarification on transfers from one elementary to another," he told the
Saginaw News on April 24, 1992. "Before, there were no governing rules and
it was hit or miss in requesting a transfer.... This will provide
structure and organization to the process."

Not all those who favor schools of choice, however, are elated with the state's
approach to instituting the practice. The Grand Rapids Press of April 23,
1992, for instance, summarized: "School officials [in Rockford] like the idea
of schools of choice, but are unhappy with its being tied to the
State Aid Act. 'This is regressive and punitive: it is not an incentive,' said
Superintendent Michael Shibler[.]"

Commentary:

No amount of legislative prescription or departmental rule-making can produce
effective schools of choice programs in districts where administrators do not
value or routinely oppose choice. Many administrators operate from a deeply
ingrained paradigm, a "tunnel vision" which does not look favorably on the idea
of schools competing in an open marketplace. While this "tunnel vision" may not
be the fault of those within the system, it is nonetheless real and can inhibit even
experimentation with choice as a school improvement program.

Most of the reservations, objections and problems cited in this section merit serious
attention. Many are not problems with choice per se, but rather
peculiarities of Michigan's first statewide experiment with schools of choice,
and most, if not all, can be overcome with improved planning, incentives and
better legislative direction. These "problems" are not problems if we choose to
learn from them and work to refine and improve Michigan's schools of choice
program.